hcm_search_compensation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: the tool is sensitive and requires ORACLE_HCM_SENSITIVE=1 plus approval unless SENSITIVE_WRITE is set. This goes beyond the structured annotation and helps the agent anticipate authorization failures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence plus a security caveat, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the tool's core action, and the sensitive warning is placed directly after. It could be longer to add parameter context, but as written it earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and sensitive access requirements, this description is not complete enough. It explains what the tool searches but not how to construct a query, what results look like, or how it differs from nearby search/get tools. The agent would need external knowledge or would likely guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for q, limit, finder, or offset. An agent cannot tell what q searches across, how finder interacts with q, or whether limit/offset are pagination controls. With four undocumented optional parameters, the description fails to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Search compensation history.' This disambiguates it from hcm_get_compensation at a basic level, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling or with hcm_search_element_entries. The purpose is understandable without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like hcm_get_compensation or other search tools. It only mentions an access prerequisite ('requires ORACLE_HCM_SENSITIVE=1 + approval'), which is a condition for use, not a usage strategy or exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.